Florida Foundation Seed Producers Inc v. Georgia Farm Services LLC et al, No. 1:2010cv00125 - Document 215 (M.D. Ga. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 182 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 9/25/13 (wks)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Florida Foundation Seed Producers Inc v. Georgia Farm Services LLC et al Doc. 215 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E MID D LE D ISTRICT OF GEORGIA ALBAN Y D IVISION FLORIDA FOUNDATION SEED PRODUCERS, INC., : : : Plain tiff, : : v. : : GEORGIA FARMS SERVICES, LLC, : GREAT SOUTHERN PEANUT, LLC, : an d : WILLIAM DOUGLAS WINGATE, : : Defen dan ts. : : : GEORGIA FARM SERVICES, LLC, : : Third-Party Plaintiff, : : v. : : GEORGIA CROP IMPROVEMENT : ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, : : Th ird-Party Defen dan t. : ___________________________ : CASE NO.: 1:10 -CV-125 (WLS) ORD ER Presen tly pen din g before the Court is Plain tiff’s Motion for Clarification of Summary J udgmen t Order (Doc. 182). For th e followin g reasons, Plain tiff’s Motion for Clarification of Sum m ary J udgm ent Order (Doc. 182) is GRAN TED -IN -PART AN D D EN IED -IN -PART. I. Le ga l Sta n d a rd : As the Eleven th Circuit n oted in Region 8 Forest Serv. Tim ber Purchasers Council v. Alcock, 993 F.2d 80 0 , 80 5-0 6 (11th Cir. 1993), relief gran ted from m otion s 1 Dockets.Justia.com for recon sideration are within “th e sound discretion of the district judge.” Th is Court’s Local Rules address m otion s for recon sideration , providin g in relevan t part that: 7.6 MOTION S FOR RECON SID ERATION . Motion s for Recon sideration shall n ot be filed as a matter of routin e practice. Wh en ever a party or attorn ey for a party believes it is absolutely n ecessary to file a motion to recon sider an order or judgmen t, th e motion shall be filed with the Clerk of court within fourteen (14) days after en try of the order or judgm en t. M.D. Ga. Local R. 7.6. Addition ally, it is the lon gstan din g practice of this Court to gran t a motion for recon sideration on ly wh en th e movan t timely demon strates th at eith er: (1) th ere h as been an in terven in g chan ge in the law; (2) n ew an d previously un available eviden ce has been discovered through th e exercise of due diligen ce; or (3) the court made a clear error of law. McCoy v. Macon W ater Auth., 966 F. Supp. 120 9, 1222-23 (M.D. Ga. 1997). II. Pla in tiff’s Mo tio n fo r Cla rifica tio n o f Su m m a ry Ju d gm e n t Ord e r Plain tiff requests that th e Court recon sider its findin g th at Defen dan t did n ot infringe under 7 U.S.C. § 2541(a)(3), as in fringem ent under Section 2541(a)(3) can occur by sexual multiplication or by tuber propagation . Plain tiff argues that because peanuts are reproduced sexually by m ean s of seed, in frin gem en t under Section 2541(a)(3) can be proven by sexual multiplication alon e. Defen dan ts agree th at peanuts are sexually multiplied, but argue th at n o in frin gemen t un der Section 2541(a)(3) occurred because n o Defen dan t ever sexually multiplied or propagated the Florida-0 7 variety, an d if a Defen dan t did propagate th e seed, it was an authorized use. As a prelim inary m atter, the Court m ust clarify a statem en t in its previous Order. In its findin gs of fact, th e Court stated: “Subsequen t to th e termin ation of GFS’s Seed 2 Agreem en t, both GFS an d GSP began propagatin g a n ew Florida-0 7 seed crop.” (Doc. 180 at 8.) Upon review, the Court fin ds that th e above statemen t should be stricken , an d replaced with th e followin g: “Subsequen t to th e termin ation of GFS’s Seed Agreem en t, both GFS an d GSP s o u g h t a s s is t a n ce in propagatin g a n ew Florida-0 7 seed crop.” Section 2541(a)(3) of the PVPA states that “it shall be an in frin gem en t of th e rights of the own er of a protected variety to… without authority... sexually multiply, or propagate by a tuber or a part of a tuber, th e variety as a step in m arketin g (for growin g purposes) th e variety.” In its previous order, th e Court limited its an alysis of infringem ent under Section 2541(a)(3) to propagation by tubers, finding that Plaintiff offered n o eviden ce demon stratin g that Defen dan ts propagated th e seed th rough th e use of tuber or portion s of tuber as a step in m arketin g. After con siderin g the parties’ argumen ts, the Court agrees with Plain tiff th at infringem ent under Section 2541(a)(3) can be proven through sexual multiplication of th e Florida-0 7 crop. Plain tiff also argues that Defen dan ts’ action s of: (1) con tractin g with th ree farm ers to grow Florida-0 7 peanut crop usin g registered Florida-0 7 seed purch ased from GSP; (2) en terin g the Florida-0 7 peanut crop con tracted to th e th ree farm ers into the Georgia seed certification program (wh ich is done solely for the purpose of propagatin g seed); and (3) receivin g 474.29 ton s of seed crop from th e th ree farmers, con stitutes sexually multiplyin g th e Florida-0 7 seed. In Asgrow Seed Co. v. W interboer, 513 U.S. 179, 187 (1995), th e Supreme Court h eld that “the act of plan tin g an d harvestin g con stituted ‘sexual multiplication .’ ” In the in stan t case, however, Defen dan ts did n ot plan t an d harvest th e seeds themselves, as th ey con tracted the actual process of sexually multiplyin g the seeds to three farm ers. 3 Such action s do n ot meet th e defin ition of sexual multiplication set forth by the Suprem e Court.1 Moreover, infringem ent un der Section 2541(a)(3) on ly exists when the propagation or reproduction was accom plished as a “step in m arketin g.” In Asgrow , th e Supreme Court h eld that sexually multiplyin g a variety ‘as a step in marketin g’ “m ean s growin g seed of the variety for the purpose of puttin g the crop up for sale.” Asgrow 513 U.S. at 188. Plain tiff offers n o eviden ce that Defen dan ts sold or in ten ded on sellin g the Florida-0 7 seed harvested by the th ree farm ers. Accordin gly, th e Court D EN IES Plain tiff’s Motion for Clarification of Sum m ary J udgm en t Order (Doc. 182), except as m odified above. Upon review, th e Court must n ow revisit on e addition al section of its September 28, 20 12, Order. Th e Court previously foun d that both GFS an d GSP in frin ged Plain tiff’s righ ts un der Section 2541(a)(5). Specifically, th e Court found that: [A]fter Plain tiff had can celled the Seed Agreemen t, GFS propagated a n ew Florida-0 7 seed crop, an d that GFS tran sferred that crop of Florida-0 7 seed to GSP for conditioning. The record also sh ows that GSP has never been auth orized by Plain tiff to propagate, con dition , sell, offer to sell, or oth erwise use the Florida-0 7 variety for an y purpose. (Doc. 116-1 at 1-3; Doc. 115-2 at 99-10 4). Fin ally, th e record shows th at GSP sold 1559 bags of seed to th ree custom ers for th e purpose of propagation after th e can cellation of the Seed Agreemen t. (Doc. 115 at 17-19, 44; Doc. 115-1 at 13, Doc. 114-2 at 9-11). Accordin gly, the Court fin ds that n o genuin e issue of m aterial fact rem ain s that: (1) GFS’s propagation an d sale of Florida-0 7 seed to GSP after th e can cellation of the Seed Agreemen t; an d (2) GSP’s sale of 1559 bags of seed to three customers for th e purpose of propagation after the can cellation of the Seed Agreemen t violated 7 U.S.C. § 2541(a)(5) an d in frin ged Plain tiff’s right as the own er of a protected variety, the Florida-0 7. (Doc. 180 at 27.) 1 They may, however, fall under various other provisions constituting infringement under the PVPA. 4 Plain tiff again argues th at Defen dan ts’ action s of: (1) con tractin g with th ree farm ers to grow Florida-0 7 peanut crop usin g registered Florida-0 7 seed purch ased from GSP; (2) en terin g th e Florida-0 7 pean ut crop con tracted to th e th ree farmers in to the Georgia seed certification program (which is don e solely for th e purpose of propagatin g seed); an d (3) receivin g 474.29 ton s of seed crop from the three farm ers, con stitutes use of the Florida-0 7 seed to propagate or sexually multiply th e variety. Plaintiff’s argum ent, which would m ake “use” as found in Section 2541(a)(5) equivalen t to tran sferrin g possession of the seed or deliverin g the seed, violates “ ‘a cardin al prin ciple of statutory con struction ’ th at ‘a statute ough t, upon th e wh ole, to be so construed th at, if it can be preven ted, no clause, senten ce, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insign ifican t.’ ” TRW , In c. v. An drew s, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (20 0 1). Section 2541(a)(5) of th e PVPA states “it shall be an in frin gem en t of th e righ ts of th e own er of a protected variety to… without authority... use seed which had been m arked ‘Unauthorized Propagation Prohibited’ or ‘Unauthorized Seed Multiplication Prohibited’ or progen y th ereof to propagate th e variety.” Section 2541(a)(1) of the PVPA states th at to “sell or market the protected variety, or offer it or expose it for sale, deliver it, ship it, con sign it, exchan ge it, or solicit an offer to buy it, or an y oth er tran sfer of title or possession of it” in frin ges upon th e righ ts of th e own er of a protected variety. Th us, to give m ean in g to the phrase “use seed” as foun d in Section 2541(a)(5), it m ust m ean someth in g distinct from th e action s set forth in Section 2541(a)(1), specifically, sellin g, deliverin g, shippin g, or an y tran sfer of title or possession of the seed. In ligh t of th e Supreme Court’s h oldin g in Asgrow , the Court finds that the ph rase “use seed,” wh en read in the con text of its surroun din g lan guage of “to propagate th e variety,” m ean s to 5 actively em ploy or handle seed m arked with “Un authorized Propagation Prohibited” or “Un auth orized Seed Multiplication” to sexually multiply or propagate th e variety. There is n o dispute that the Florida-0 7 variety is a protected variety marked with the appropriate labels described above, an d that Plain tiff is the own er of th e Florida-0 7 variety. However, th e record, as clarified above, does n ot demon strate that GFS “propagated a n ew Florida-0 7 seed crop”; rather, it demon strates that GFS con tracted with three farm ers to propagate a n ew Florida-0 7 seed crop. In ligh t of the Suprem e Court’s holdin g in Asgrow that defin ed sexual multiplication an d th e Court’s in terpretation of the phrase “use seed” as foun d in Section 2541(a)(5), Defen dan t GFS’s act of con tractin g th e plan tin g an d h arvesting of th e seeds does n ot fall un der Section 2541(a)(5) prohibition on usin g seed wh ich h ad been m arked “Un authorized Propagation Prohibited” or “Unauthorized Seed Multiplication Prohibited” or progen y thereof to propagate the variety. Sim ilarly, while the record shows that GSP sold 1559 bags of seed to th ree customers for th e purpose of propagation after th e can cellation of the Seed Agreemen t, th e Court does n ot fin d that th e sale of seed alon e falls under the statutory parameter of Section 2541(a)(5)—th e use of the seed for sexual multiplication . Accordin gly, in ligh t of the law an d upon review of its previous Order, th e Court revises its Septem ber 28, 20 12 Order an d D EN IES Plain tiff’s Motion for Partial Sum m ary J udgm en t (Doc. 111) as to infringem ent un der 7 U.S.C. § 2541(a)(5), an d GRAN TS Defen dan ts’ Motion for Sum m ary J udgm en t (Doc. 10 9) as to in frin gem en t un der 7 U.S.C. § 2541(a)(5). Fin ally, in its Motion for Summary J udgmen t, Plain tiff alleges that Defen dan ts’ action s con stituted willful in frin gemen t in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2541(a)(3) an d (5), an d th at Wingate induced GFS and GSP to infringem ent of 7 U.S.C. § 2541(a)(3) an d (5). In 6 its Septem ber 28, 20 12 Order, the Court den ied Plain tiff’s Motion for Sum m ary J udgm en t on th e issues of in ducem en t an d willful in frin gem en t. (Doc. 180 at 30 , 32.) As stated above, th e Court h as foun d th at, as a question of law, n o Defen dan t in frin ged under 7 U.S.C. §§ 2541(a)(3) an d (5). As such , no Defendan t could willfully in fringe either provision of the PVPA. Sim ilarly, a findin g of inducem ent requires a findin g of direct in frin gemen t. As n o Defen dan t was foun d to directly in frin ge under 7 U.S.C. §§ 2541(a)(3) an d (5), Wingate could not in duce GFS an d GSP. Accordingly, the Court D EN IES Plain tiff’s Motion for Partial Summary J udgmen t (Doc. 111) on th e issue of willful in fringem ent of 7 U.S.C. §§ 2541(a)(3) and (5) an d on th e issue of in duced infringem ent under 7 U.S.C. § 2541(a)(10 ). The Court GRAN TS Defen dan ts’ Motion for Sum m ary J udgm en t (Doc. 10 9) on the issue of willful in frin gem en t of 7 U.S.C. §§ 2541(a)(3) an d (5) an d on the issue of in duced infringem ent under 7 U.S.C. § 2541(a)(10 ). For th e foregoin g reason s, Plain tiff’s Motion for Clarification of Summary J udgm ent Order (Doc. 182) is GRAN TED -IN -PART AN D D EN IED -IN -PART to the exten t modified above. The Court also D EN IES Plain tiff’s Motion for Partial Summary J udgm en t (Doc. 111) as to willful in frin gem en t un der 7 U.S.C. § 2541(a)(5) an d as to induced infrin gem ent under 7 U.S.C. § 2541(a)(10 ), an d GRAN TS Defen dan ts’ Motion for Sum m ary J udgm en t (Doc. 10 9) as to willful in frin gem en t un der 7 U.S.C. § 2541(a)(5) an d as to in duced in fringem ent under 7 U.S.C. § 2541(a)(10 ). Th e Court’s previously referenced Order (Doc. 180 ) is am en ded an d m odified as set out above. Plaintiff’s claim s for breach of contract (Count II), conversion claims against all Defen dan ts (Coun t III), an d unjust en rich m en t claim again st Win gate an d GSP (Coun t IV) remain in th e case. Defen dan t’s claim for n egligen t misrepresen tation again st GCIA 7 (Coun t III) also rem ain s in th e case. The case will be set for th e J an uary 20 14 trial term , wh ich begin s on J anuary 6, 20 14, by separate order of th e Court. SO ORD ERED , th is 25th day of Septem ber, 20 13. / s/ W. Louis Sands _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TH E H ON ORABLE W . LOU IS SAN D S, U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
